DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by mhays

This is done elsewhere, and it works.

Crazy imagination you have.

if you live on a cul de sac.
we all don't, conner.

[mhays]

Seattle doesn't have many cul de sacs, yet it's worked (more or less) for many years. https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/yo.../garbage-rates Similar rules apply to multifamily shared bins.

You seem to go off emotion, imagination, and conspiracy theories, so I'm sure you'll be ranting about Denver's program forever. I posted this for the others.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle doesn't have many cul de sacs, yet it's worked (more or less) for many years. https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/yo.../garbage-rates Similar rules apply to multifamily shared bins.

You seem to go off emotion, imagination, and conspiracy theories, so I'm sure you'll be ranting about Denver's program forever. I posted this for the others.

I rather enjoy bulldurhamer's comments. But the question to ask is does he make good points. Sometimes I agree; sometimes I don't. Here, he's made many good points.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/22/is-r...cs-expert.html

He says it is important for consumers to understand that just because you recycle an item does not mean it will be recycled in the end. The right question is “Can a garbage company, the actual company in charge of the recycling in the geography, recycle it at a profit?”

Generally, the answer is no as the economics of recycling no longer work for most things for many reasons.

https://hbr.org/1993/11/recycling-fo...iness-frontier

Despite the proliferation of curbside collection bins and public awareness campaigns, recycling programs around the United States aren’t working.

Modern urban recycling ... has successfully created a tremendous supply of recycled newspapers, glass bottles, office paper, and other materials. But when it comes to consumer and business demand for the products made from these materials, the economics of recycling falls apart.

This is from the Harvard Business Review.

I'm not sure, can't speak to collecting garbage for composting. Guess I'd be curious to see how this might work in Denver. I can see residents putting a lot of crap into the composting cart - since it's free. That should be fun. Everybody goes for the $9 cart and once that's full allocates the rest depending on their mood?

[mhays]

It's several benefits at once: Reducing the total volume of solid waste, reducing that goes to landfills, providing useful compost, and (perhaps last) providing recyclable material.

IIRC Seattle produces relatively little landfill waste vs. its population and workforce. This is a big part of it.

The point for this thread is people do follow garbage-sorting and graduated-fee programs when they're asked and there's enforcement.

The bin size charges are one of those little nudges that really do work. Every penny increase on cigarette taxes will reportedly spur a relatively predictable decrease in sales, which we know because 50 states and many countries have detailed evidence. Every 10 cents can reduce soda consumption. Every 5 cent bag fee will reduce bag overuse (turns out you can use em several times!).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's several benefits at once: Reducing the total volume of solid waste, reducing that goes to landfills, providing useful compost, and (perhaps last) providing recyclable material.

IIRC Seattle produces relatively little landfill waste vs. its population and workforce. This is a big part of it.

The point for this thread is people do follow garbage-sorting and graduated-fee programs when they're asked and there's enforcement.

The bin size charges are one of those little nudges that really do work. Every penny increase on cigarette taxes will reportedly spur a relatively predictable decrease in sales, which we know because 50 states and many countries have detailed evidence. Every 10 cents can reduce soda consumption. Every 5 cent bag fee will reduce bag overuse (turns out you can use em several times!).

It’s also leading to neighbor on neighbor warfare in the alleys, where cans are strewn wherever they fit, and where people use others’ cans all the time. (The City’s trucks only pick up on one side, so inevitably the across-the-alley neighbors have to put their cans in front of my house on trash day.) And the cans have no means for locking (I emailed the City to ask if I’d be allowed to secure my can, since I am paying for it. Short answer, no.) I installed a camera so at least I can go after the jerks and toss trash back over their back fences when they cheat.

Also, the amount of non-recycling that’ll go in the recycling bins now will be insane. And they have no means of enforcing this. Hope the sorting works well.

Also the statement that the alleys are already full is absolutely true. At least until they switch to trucks that can pick up on two sides. I have the unfortunate honor of being the house that has space, so I currently host bins for five houses. But I have started moving my neighbors’ cans because they are blocking my access now. They’ll have to figure something else out. Or I will disappear their cans.

We also leave nasty notes all the time. And this is in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Denver. I can’t imagine at my old house, where the alleys were already ground zero for inter-neighborly nastiness.

I guess in sum. He may be crazy. But he’s not wrong.

[TakeFive]

I don't have any particular issue with the concept of recycling. It's been around since the 1970's from what I recall.

In Phx, they pick up once a week and it's then taken to a Materials Recovery Facility where they sort out glass, paper, metal, cardboard and plastic into separate bales. The city is absorbing the cost and that's fine.

They used to export bales of paper to SE Asia but last I heard they didn't want any more. Apparently only about one-third of glass is considered good for recycling. Same for plastics; some types are desirable but a lot of it is not.

What I don't know is where all the material not considered desirable or economical to recycle ends up? That seems to be a bit of a mystery.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by mhays

This is done elsewhere, and it works.

Crazy imagination you have.

Not really an imagination. I live in Baker and my side yard is alley facing. People just leave their garbage and recycling bins on what’s technically my property. And there are so many that they don’t fit and spill into the sidewalk. And they don’t care because it’s not their property. Just a few weeks ago Denver Trash busted a portion of my fence. When the supervisor came out to look I asked him about it, told me to stop having people put their bins so close to my fence as if it’s my job to police it. I asked what we are supposed to do when you add compost bins and he just shrugged his shoulders. So yes for people who live in central Denver, it’s not well thought out. And it’s sucks because the alley is really the only place for me and my neighbor to put our bins and people already put their trash in ours, can only imagine it getting worse if you have to pay. Probably have to put a padlock on them or something.

[mhays]

So all these problems are under the current system?

The topic is whether the NEW system will create problems.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

So all these problems are under the current system?

The topic is whether the NEW system will create problems.

It will very clearly exacerbate the problems. More cans and a financial incentive to (A) have the smallest black bin possible, and (B) clear opportunity (with minimal downside) to put any excess into (i) your neighbors' black cans or (ii) purple and green cans, polluting those with inappropriate refuse.

This is not difficult or complicated. Nobody is saying it can't work, or that it doesn't work elsewhere. But I do not know the first thing about those other systems.

The nuances of the system we are actually implementing very clearly (1) deny the realities of current issues (lack of acknowledgement of these issues is clear from both DOTI's statements and the discussions at Council; it's as if none of them live in the same City as the rest of us, which in the case of DOTI staffers, is frequently true, and (2) because there is no acknowledgement of today's challenges, there is not even discussion around whether the new financial incentive might serve to exacerbate those problems. Which common sense and the basic economics of personal incentives would suggest is beyond obvious.

Money incentivizes behaviors. When we implement a tax credit, we believe that. When we implement a tax/fee, it will do the same.

Yes, a tax on black cans, priced by quantity, will reduce the amount of stuff going into black cans. It's quite a leap of liberal people-are-good faith to suggest that means the amount of stuff generated that belongs in a black can also goes down, without considering other, very legitimate concerns about where that material might go.

When the City cut back the days for large item pickups, do you think that reduced the number of couches and mattresses dumped in the alleys? I seriously doubt it. (I just toss them into the middle of the alley - when they block traffic, then people care, and they seem to magically disappear.)

[mhays]

I suspect it might do both...the problems will get worse, but also the waste stream will diminish. At minimum it'll make people think about it, and that tends to have a real effect.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It will very clearly exacerbate the problems. More cans and a financial incentive to (A) have the smallest black bin possible, and (B) clear opportunity (with minimal downside) to put any excess into (i) your neighbors' black cans or (ii) purple and green cans, polluting those with inappropriate refuse.

This is not difficult or complicated. Nobody is saying it can't work, or that it doesn't work elsewhere. But I do not know the first thing about those other systems.

The nuances of the system we are actually implementing very clearly (1) deny the realities of current issues (lack of acknowledgement of these issues is clear from both DOTI's statements and the discussions at Council; it's as if none of them live in the same City as the rest of us, which in the case of DOTI staffers, is frequently true, and (2) because there is no acknowledgement of today's challenges, there is not even discussion around whether the new financial incentive might serve to exacerbate those problems. Which common sense and the basic economics of personal incentives would suggest is beyond obvious.

I'd also suggest that the system works better in the vast majority of the city that was laid out post 1940's (hint: the alley's are wide enough for bins to go on both sides and we don't write passive-aggressive notes to each other on that issue). Moving from dumpsters to individual bins in the pre-1940's area was a mistake in that regard. I think that some sort of centralized collection system is necessary again. Though screw the dumpsters- go Amsterdam style with their recessed bins.

As for the fee structure- there's definitely an incentive for abuse in the proposed system. I'm all for adding a few dozen code enforcement agents and dropping the hammer on non-compliance. Back it up with asset seizure and kick the scofflaws out of the city. If you can't manage your trash bin, there's no way you're responsible enough to manage a home.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

I suspect it might do both...the problems will get worse, but also the waste stream will diminish. At minimum it'll make people think about it, and that tends to have a real effect.

In Phoenix, apartment complexes are not required to participate. Most are built with strategically placed dumpsters and don't have the room. Plus, (many) apartment dwellers are notoriously undisciplined.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I'd also suggest that the system works better in the vast majority of the city that was laid out post 1940's (hint: the alley's are wide enough for bins to go on both sides and we don't write passive-aggressive notes to each other on that issue).

Arcadia, a nice residential neighborhood in Phoenix and adjacent to Scottsdale has been quite creative. Not a gated community which resulted in many visitors treating their alleys as Goodwill centers, donating all manner of stuff in the middle of the night. So they gated their alleys.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

When the City cut back the days for large item pickups, do you think that reduced the number of couches and mattresses dumped in the alleys? I seriously doubt it. (I just toss them into the middle of the alley - when they block traffic, then people care, and they seem to magically disappear.)

Deliciously done!

While it may not make a difference I wondered if the timing of this is Not Good for getting the sidewalk initiative passed? Hard to say whether there's any sour carryover I guess.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

While it may not make a difference I wondered if the timing of this is Not Good for getting the sidewalk initiative passed? Hard to say whether there's any sour carryover I guess.

City hall does not want the sidewalk initiative to pass, so to the extent there is carryover, folks will be thrilled.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I'm all for adding a few dozen code enforcement agents and dropping the hammer on non-compliance. Back it up with asset seizure and kick the scofflaws out of the city. If you can't manage your trash bin, there's no way you're responsible enough to manage a home.

We could do a bounty system, I hear that's all the rage these days. $10 for a coyote. $100 for reporting an abortion. $50 for illegal dumping.

[CONative]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It’s also leading to neighbor on neighbor warfare in the alleys, where cans are strewn wherever they fit, and where people use others’ cans all the time. (The City’s trucks only pick up on one side, so inevitably the across-the-alley neighbors have to put their cans in front of my house on trash day.) And the cans have no means for locking (I emailed the City to ask if I’d be allowed to secure my can, since I am paying for it. Short answer, no.) I installed a camera so at least I can go after the jerks and toss trash back over their back fences when they cheat.

Also, the amount of non-recycling that’ll go in the recycling bins now will be insane. And they have no means of enforcing this. Hope the sorting works well.

Also the statement that the alleys are already full is absolutely true. At least until they switch to trucks that can pick up on two sides. I have the unfortunate honor of being the house that has space, so I currently host bins for five houses. But I have started moving my neighbors’ cans because they are blocking my access now. They’ll have to figure something else out. Or I will disappear their cans.

We also leave nasty notes all the time. And this is in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Denver. I can’t imagine at my old house, where the alleys were already ground zero for inter-neighborly nastiness.

I guess in sum. He may be crazy. But he’s not wrong.

Just out of coincidence while talking about other waste issues, I heard from a Denver Waste supervisor that the 'one-side-of-alley' thing is just a test and it isn't working well. He thinks it may not be permanent. He also said that the test folks and anyone else really need to be vocal because there are a few council folks that think the one-side is a great idea for efficiency. How long has been happening by you? Have you been informed it's a test?

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

City hall does not want the sidewalk initiative to pass, so to the extent there is carryover, folks will be thrilled.

OOTL: Can you provide more color on this? Why doesn't the city want this to pass, and what is the alternative?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CONative

Just out of coincidence while talking about other waste issues, I heard from a Denver Waste supervisor that the 'one-side-of-alley' thing is just a test and it isn't working well. He thinks it may not be permanent. He also said that the test folks and anyone else really need to be vocal because there are a few council folks that think the one-side is a great idea for efficiency. How long has been happening by you? Have you been informed it's a test?

This is hilarious; what a mess.

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

OOTL: Can you provide more color on this? Why doesn't the city want this to pass, and what is the alternative?

What I assume bunt is referring to is that sidewalks have not been high on the City Council's priority list.

Passing a dedicated revenue stream though, is the only way to fly if you want to get something done.

[TakeFive]

Gotta Love Politics

Metro Denver set to drop I-25 and C-470 expansions as planners shape climate-minded transportation future
August 15, 2022 By Nathaniel Minor - CPR News

After decades of pouring billions of dollars into a transportation system that favors moving vehicles quickly above all else, the Denver region could see a significant funding shift away from road expansions and toward public transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Given that buses and rail transit are overly crowded this should help. /sarcasm font off

While I'm not wholly against 'liberal visions' I am amused by the lack of pragmatism.

More Bark than Bite

Both the noted C-470 and I-25 expansions are not near term priorities. Priority projects will still be done.

But some Denver-area highway expansions would remain the new long-term plan, including new toll lanes on Interstate 270 in Commerce City, I-25 north of Denver, and I-70 at Floyd Hill west of Denver. About a dozen urban arterial streets would still be expanded, too.

A lot of climate talk - Blackouts dead ahead

Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Jared Polis put the transportation rethinking in motion. Big reductions in emissions from power utilities are on track, state officials say, as they gradually move from coal and gas to renewables like wind and solar.

Yes, there's a plan in progress to move away from coal. But if you also eliminate Nat Gas then downtown Denver can look forward to Blackouts; that should be fun. Talk about lack of understanding and pragmatism.

This part sounds good

The proposal would accelerate some bus rapid transit projects by a decade. Under the new plan, five “BRT” corridors would be completed by 2030: East Colfax in Denver and Aurora; East Colfax Extension between I-225 and E-470; Federal Boulevard; Colorado Boulevard; and State Highway 119 between Boulder and Longmont.

This would be a good use of State funding. Chances are they only get to East Colfax BRT, Federal Blvd and SR 119 between Boulder and Longmont, but that would be great. I suspect that Federal will be more of a BRT-lite plan.

Lone Tree is enthused

They want a bike trail along Lincoln Ave between Parker and Lone Tree. No objection from this peanut gallery.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

A lot of climate talk - Blackouts dead ahead

Yes, there's a plan in progress to move away from coal. But if you also eliminate Nat Gas then downtown Denver can look forward to Blackouts; that should be fun. Talk about lack of understanding and pragmatism.

No idea what you're talking about on this- unless you're just waxing poetic. The local friendly monopolistic utility committed to reducing it's carbon intensity by 80% from 2005 levels prior to the state getting involved. We ain't CA (which includes AZ- also known as CAISO's bitch) or Texas with an asinine lack of firm capacity planning or not demonstrating resource adequacy.

[TakeFive]

Don't be embarrassed to admit you love my poetry

Originally Posted by wong21fr

No idea what you're talking about on this- unless you're just waxing poetic. The local friendly monopolistic utility committed to reducing it's carbon intensity by 80% from 2005 levels prior to the state getting involved. We ain't CA (which includes AZ- also known as CAISO's bitch) or Texas with an asinine lack of firm capacity planning or not demonstrating resource adequacy.

To quote my conservative friends because they know what they're talking about: "The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow."
Gosh; I thought you knew this?

Due to climate change, my recommendation would be to have plenty of backup capacity. The great thing about Nat Gas is you can crank it up when you need it and shut it down when you don't. Storing electricity is iffy at best and still largely unproven; I wouldn't want to rely on that.

FYI, Arizona sources its electricity: " In 2021, 99% of Arizona's total electricity net generation was provided from 6 sources: natural gas (43%); nuclear power (28%); coal (13%); solar energy (9%); hydroelectric power (5%): and wind (1%)."

The problem with Texas was their systems weren't 'winterized' and they froze up. They've weathered this summer's heat peaks.